3 ms·
Anthropic's own explanation (https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark) is not that clear-cut:
by joshkel 2mo ago
Anthropic's own explanation (https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark) is not that clear-cut:
"When Claude proofreads text written by a person, what it gives back has generally only been lightly edited; because nearly all the words are the person’s, there’s very little (if anything) for the watermark to attach to. Depending on the length of the text and how heavily Claude has edited it, those changes might not be enough to make Claude’s involvement detectable."
(emphasis added)
- mrguyorama 2mo agoYou've entirely missed the point. A proofreader, like an english teacher, can return you your writing simply annotated and marked up, with suggestions and edits in red pen for example. Then you rewrite your draft into a final using those edits and notes as suggestions. Making an LLM act like that proof reader would likely not cause your output text to be labeled as generated, even by this system.
- Max-Limelihood 1mo agoI think they should release metrics for "how much of this is LLM-written" (the raw test statistic, not including length) along with detection.